SEIZING THE MOMENT ON UNFAIR SEIZURE LAW

One of America's most essential liberties is the right to protection
against unreasonable searches and seizures, which is enshrined in the
Fourth Amendment. Unfortunately, a 1984 federal law allowed almost
unlimited seizures of people's property without compensation and even
without a finding of guilt in a court of law.

But the tide has been changing. In 1994 the California Legislature
passed a bill giving citizens greater protection against seizures. The
bill was advanced by a coalition of liberals and conservatives, led by
Democratic Sen. John Burton of San Francisco (now Senate president
pro-tem) and then-Assemblyman Gil Ferguson of Newport Beach, a Republican.

Now a similar reform is advancing through the U.S.Congress, sponsored
by Republican Rep. Henry Hyde of Illinois and supported by his usual
opponent, Democratic Rep. Barney Frank of Massachusetts.

House Resolution 1658:

Shifts the burden of proof from the property owner to the government
and from "a preponderance of evidence" to the more strict "clear and
convincing evidence" that the property was used in a crime.

Establishes an "innocent owner" defense in which someone - such as an
apartment owner - who did not know his property was being used for a
crime would be protected from a government property seizure.

Allows property owners to use their property while a case is pending
in court.

Eliminates the requirement that an owner contesting an administrative
seizure must put up $5,000 or 10 percent of the value (whichever is
less) before the seizure can even be contested in court.

Repays owners for damage to property while in federal
custody.

HR 1658 passed by a whopping 375-48 in the House in June and is
pending in the Senate Judiciary Committee. The committee chairmen,
Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah, "has not announced yet what he
intends to do," said committee press secretary Jeanne Lopatto. "He is
interested in it and knows something has to be done."

California Sen. Dianne Feinstein's office told us that she is
supporting a bill to be introduced next week by Republican Jeff
Sessions of Georgia, her fellow member of the Judiciary Committee,
because it doesn't go as far as the Hyde bill and has the support of
law enforcement organizations.

The wording of the Sessions bill hasn't been released yet, Sen.
Sessions' press secretary John Cox told us. He explained, "It makes
meaningful changes but doesn't go as far as the Hyde bill and has the
support of law enforcement organizations.

The wording of the Sessions bill hasn't been released yet, Sen.
Sessions' press secretary John Cox told us. He explained, "It makes
meaningful changes but doesn't go as far as the Hyde bill, which in
Sen. Sessions' opinion goes too far in undermining the ability of the
government to seize ill-gotten gains from criminals." The Sessions
bill also has the support of the Clinton Justice Department.

Depending on what the wording of the Sessions bill turns out to be,
this could end up as a repeat of an effort earlier this decade by Rep.
Hyde to pass asset-forfeiture reform. When the Clinton Justice
Department forced changes in the wording, civil rights proponents
ended up switching into opposition, defeating the bill.

We fail to see what in the Hyde proposal could aid real criminals.
Sen. Feinstein needs to check with state Sen.Burton on what the
feelings on this bill are in her party. And in making his own
decision, Sen. Hatch should ask rank-and-file Republicans what they
think of asset forfeitures. We suspect he'll find strong support for
the Hyde bill. Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer has not taken a position.

HR 1658 should be passed unaltered by the Senate. Americans once again
deserve to have restored their Fourth Amendment right to protection
against unreasonable searches and seizures.